So T-bills are in special category different from regular stock and fund sales.
T-bills are in a special category different from regular and muni bond sales. Bonds have their own rules dealing with appreciation. Unless bond appreciation is de minimus (under 1/4% per year), it is taxed as ordinary income (even for munis, except for OID).
Q: If I anticipate a sizable capital gain on the sale of an investment during the year, do I need to make a quarterly estimated tax payment during the tax year?
You can make substantially equal estimates or you can file Form 2210 Schedule AI (annualized income) to account for uneven income throughout the year. I've used that in the past for large 4th quarter Roth conversions, cap gains distributions, fund sales, etc.
You have to keep track of your income by period (Jan-March, April-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec) and work through the tax liability for each quarter. In recent years before 2023 it wasn't worth the effort because interest rates were so low. Little interest income was lost in paying equal estimates.
2022 IRS pages:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2210.pdf (Form 2210)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i2210.pdf (Instructions)
Also, taxpayers are not required to file a 4th quarter estimate if they file their tax return including amount due by January 31st.

Actively managed funds with the largest inflows/outflows through November 2023 are listed below.
Data from Morningstar Fund Investor (Jan. 2024).
Largest Inflows
JPMorgan Large Cap Growth (OLGAX) $20.0B
Pimco Income (PONAX) $14.0B
JPMorgan Core Bond (PGBOX) $8.2B
Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX) $7.3B
Baird Aggregate Bond (BAGIX) $5.7B
American Funds Bond Fund of America (BFAFX) $5.7B
T. Rowe Price U.S. Large-Cap Core (TRULX) $4.9B
Goldman Sachs GQG Partners International Opportunities (GSIHX) $4.6B
MFS International Equity (MIEJX) $4.5B
Largest Outflows
T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX) $16.3B
American Funds Growth Fund of America (AGTHX) $15.0B
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock (PRGFX) $10.7B
American Funds EuroPacific Growth (AEPGX) $9.5B
Metropolitan West Total Return Bond (MWTRX) $9.3B
Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) $8.3B
Vanguard Wellington (VWENX) $7.4B
Lord Abbett Short Duration Income (LALDX) $7.2B
Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade (VFSUX) $6.9B
Strategic Advisers Large Cap(FALCX) $6.8B

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through December using Refinitiv's data drop dated 5 January. Month to date numbers mixed. Tech off 4.3%, heathy up 2, SPY off 1.6. A bit of a letdown after the strong year-end numbers. Core bonds off 1.1.

The tax deferral of T-bills depends not only on the fact that interest isn't paid until maturity but also that they mature in not more than 12 months.
People are generally aware that if they buy zero coupon bonds, interest is imputed and taxes owed yearly. The exception is for any debt instrument (not just bonds) with a maturity date not more than one year from date of issue. That's practically the definition of a T-bill. Likewise, interest is not imputed on CDs that mature in 12 months or less.
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/articles/2017-03-03/4-tax-considerations-for-cd-investors
I believe the part of the tax code that exempts short-term maturities from imputed interest is 26 USC §1272(a)(2)(C). In essence, as yogi described, the debt instruments (including CDs) are viewed as being sold at a discount. From a tax perspective, it's not that you buy a $1000 CD and get $1050 in a year, but rather that you are buying a $1050 CD at a discount price of $1000.
Sort of like buying gasoline with a cash discount.

I guess the question is why?
The usual reasons to buy a bond fund instead of an individual bond are: issuer diversification, individual security credit risk, maturity/duration diversification, and liquidity. With Treasury funds, you don't get issuer diversification (only one issuer - the Treasury), and no concern with credit risk. Since all bonds mature in the same year, there's little interest risk diversification the fund gives you aside from minor duration differences between the bonds.
It would be different if you were thinking about corporate bullet funds, e.g. BSCR or IBDS.
With these you get real issuer diversification and credit risk diversification.
 
Some people prefer funds because they're more familiar and/or easier to trade. That seems to be the main selling point of bullet treasury funds. That said, Treasuries are very liquid. You can think of buying IBTH as the same as buying 20 Treasuries, all with roughly the same maturity date, and thus roughly the same YTM.
If you buy a term ETF now and hold it to maturity, you should receive roughly the SEC yield. That is currently 4.03% for IBTH. You can likely do a couple of basis points better by buying individual Treasuries and holding to maturity. And there's no particular reason to buy more than one CUSIP (i.e. multiple identical treasury bonds).
Fidelity shows 3 year (maturing early 2027) Treasuries yielding 4.17% and 3 year zeros yielding 4.18%. Subtract a few basis points for the $1/bond trading fee; subtract another few basis points for getting a small number of bonds. OTOH, IBTH seems to always trade at a slight premium to NAV, which hurts its expected yield. And there's the 7 basis point ER it charges.
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with funds like these. If you prefer funds to individual bonds (given roughly equal risk and returns) and you want to cash out in a particular year (e.g. for that trip around the world you've always planned), these seem fine.

How long has Bruce held JOE as a material holding? What %age of FAIRX does Bruce own? The fund has 2 stocks amounting to 87% of Portfolio and 10% in cash. The other one being EPD. He must have God status in the eyes of Fund shareholders!

Asset Allocation & Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement – Bolin
There is an interesting article by Charles Lynn Bolin ( @lynnbolin2021 ) on withdrawals in the January 2024 MFO issue. In the SUPPLEMENTARY information presented here, portfolio # won’t be used as they can cause confusion.
In Bolin’s Table #1 with 4 portfolios tested with 6% withdrawal rates, be aware that those are 6% withdrawals from the YEAREND balances every year. So, the amounts withdrawn will fluctuate widely with the market. The residual balances are shown in Figure #1 to indicate whether those kept up with inflation.
Interestingly, PV has a parameter PWR (under the Metrics tab) that provides max % withdrawals from YEAREND balances that will also leave inflation-adjusted residual at the end.
A reference is made to “the time-tested 4%”, but that so-called Bengen’s Rule has a different withdrawal regime – 4% of the INITIAL lump-sum that is subsequently adjusted annually for inflation; the PV run settings also allow for this and the related PV metric SWR is the max % withdrawal in this scenario (that will EXHAUST the portfolio).
One can also deduce from the PV run data the max % of the INITIAL lump-sum that is subsequently adjusted annually for inflation AND leaves inflation-adjusted initial lump-sum at the end, and that % is SWRM.
The table below shows PWRs, SWRs, SWRMs.
Portfolio; PWR; SWR; SWRM
50%VFINX + 50%VTRIX; 5.59%; 7.71%; 6.79%
70%VFINX + 25%VBMFX; 5.92%; 7.77%; 6.96%
50%VFINX + 25%VTRIX + 25%VBMFX; 5.40%; 7.46%; 6.50%
VFINX; 7.06%; 8.77%; 8.19%
Bolin’s conclusions about inflation adjusted residual balances are consistent with whether the PWR is less than, or greater than, 6% in the table above. It is also interesting that all could support Bengen-style 4% (w/COLA) and even higher (note SWRs). In fact, all would leave more than inflation-adjusted initial lump-sum even with 6% w/COLA (note SWRMs).
Of course, all the data and conclusions are for the period 01/1987-12/2023.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2024/01/asset-allocation-and-withdrawal-strategies-in-retirement/

Clarity:
yogibearbull
RiverPark Strategic Income (RPHIX, RSIIX) is advised by CrossingBridge and there are no sub-advisors. The Fund left the RiverPark Family of Funds in 1H23. The same investment team guides RSIIX.
Shostakovich and MikeM
RPHIX outperformed T-Bills. An investment grade ultrashort strategy CBUDX by CrossingBridge also outperformed T-Bills and the pre-merger SPAC ETC (SPC) which should be considered ultra short outperformed T-Bills. All are ultra short duration. I am also confused on downturn comment since I scratch my head as to the reference.
RPHIX
RiverPark Short-Term High Yield is sub-advised by Cohanzick abd still part of the RiverPark family. Cohanzick is the controlling shareholder of CrossingBridge. Cohanzick only advises RPHIX, private funds and managed accounts. CrossingBridge only advises mutual funds, ETF and UCITs.

@WABAC
Nice image !!!
One has to purchase FZDXX mmkt like a fund, and also sell, if one chooses to use the monies to purchase something else; so you'd have a few days for settlement of the sake back in one's core mmkt. So, it doesn't function like a standard core mmkt at Fido invested in SPAXX or FDRXX. I did a bit of edit and bold for the next, to remove other wording that was not needed about Vanguard.
Next is a nice write about FZDXX from a year ago, by msf.
--- If a fund has a $100,000 minimum, is it OK if you invest with this amount and shortly afterwards, remove a large portion of the initial sum while maintaining the rest of the investment?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the fund requires for a maintenance balance, and then if you fail to maintain that balance, whether the fund company chooses to exercise its right to give you notice (if required) and close (or downgrade) your account.
For taxable accounts, FZDXX requires $100K to open, but only $10K to maintain AND ($10K min to open in IRAs) . From its statutory prospectus:
If your fund balance falls below $10,000 worth of shares for any reason and you do not increase your balance, Fidelity may sell all of your shares and send the proceeds to you after providing you with at least 30 days' notice to reestablish the minimum balance.
So by prospectus, you're allowed to drop the balance by 90% with no consequences. And even if you drop the balance lower, it's up to the discretion of the fund company (here, Fidelity) to close out the account after appropriate notice.
The reality is that for this particular fund, Fidelity is pretty lax. But don't push things too far. I did. For RMD purposes, I sold $10K of a fund in a Roth IRA and moved it to FZDXX ($10K min in IRAs). I announced to the Fidelity rep that my intent was that some of that be used for the RMD and the rest stay there to maintain open position in FZDXX. Even though this would drop the balance below the min; I would rely upon Fidelity's discretion not to close the account.
While the rep acknowledged that Fidelity doesn't really close these accounts, my explicit acknowledgement was a bit too much for him. He (rightly) felt compelled to check with his back office whether this was okay before he put the trade through. The back office said what I was planning was fine and the rep placed the trade. But I did, inadvertently, put him in an awkward position.
The bottom line is that it depends. If the rules allow a lower maintenance balance, all is well and good. If not, it's up to the fund company. In my experience, most times the fund company won't care. But sometimes it does act.

Happy New Year. Many thanks.

Hi @WABAC The short trade week seemed to start with money moving to some of the laggards from 2023; but I don't find much to have held. One week into this new year after 2023's large run in growth and tech. can't be used to measure right now, IMHO. A lot of the growth/tech. etf's ranged from -3 to -5% to start the year. Although our house remains a tech. holdings bias. The only positive we have this past week is FHLC, Fido healthcare etf at +1.5%.
Our senior citizen(s) portfolio is at:
--- 43%, MMKT***
--- 38%, Equity; growth/tech./health related
--- 19%, IG bond fund
*** Core Fido MMKT's = 5.01% average; one mmkt that must be purchased is FZDXX, that has a yield of 5.21%. We've thought about chasing MINT, etf, Pimco enhanced ultra short duration that returned +6.25% in 2023. The etf is on that performance path at this time, for 2024; starting the year at +.12% for the week. Too much going on right now, so we'll remain with holdings for a bit.
Regards,
Catch

Thanks Charles. I'd be glad to chat with you about some thoughts, though I just got down this rabbit hole responding to a comment that using raw data might not be circumventing a screener. Your post now addresses that in crystal clear terms:

We also have a link to an excel file with performance summary of all funds, oldest share class only ... about 15,000 funds. I know some subscribers just prefer that link! Spreadsheet style

No muss, no fuss, just circumventing all tools.
If I were still really deep into data analysis, I'd likely import that spreadsheet into a DBMS. These days I've got better things to do with my time: going on a river cruise out to the Black Sea, researching a trans-Canada railway trip, fighting with my insurance company on the network status of my healthcare providers (the insurer has processed over half of them incorrectly).

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending January 5, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = -1.43% / -1.43% (I Shares, Mexico)
NOTE: 4 day market week, due to New Year holiday.
Remain curious,
Catch

Barron’s Funds Quarterly (2023/Q4–January 8, 2024)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2023/Q4 and YTD to 12/31/23)
Pg L2 With higher bond yields, allocation/balanced funds have comeback from dead yet again. But not all allocation/balanced funds are the same. Some have growth or value tilt in their equity portion. Multi-asset funds mix stocks, bonds, and alternatives (HY, FR/BL, convertibles, REITs, option-writing, EMs). M* studies have shown that “boring” allocation funds have the lowest investor-return-gap (= fund TR – asset-weighted fund TR) and one explanation is that their holders tend to stick through good and bad times. There are several types of allocation/balanced funds that follow. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
CA, 15-30% Equity*: BLADX, USCCX
MCA, 30-50% Equity*: FMSDX, VWINX
MA, 50-70% Equity*: ABALX, AOR, CGBL, FPURX, VBIAX, VWELX; includes classic Allocation 60-40.
MAA, 70-85% Equity*: FPACX
Tactical Allocation: CTFAX, LCORX, SFHYX
Global Allocation: EDIAX, LGMAX, RPGAX, SGENX, VGWLX
Target-Date Funds (TDFs) have glide-path allocations. These are often found in 401k/403b plans but are also available to retail investors. Mentioned are those from AF, BlackRock, DFA, Fidelity, Price, TIAA, Vanguard.
*Nominal-Equity. Effective-equity is typically higher.
Pg L6: JAPANESE market (fwd P/E 14.6) awakened in 2023 from a long slumber. There is finally inflation and corporate governance has improved (one can even look for dividends in Japan). The BOJ has widened the trading band for weak yen. But high government debt and BOJ monetary easing remain issues. Mentioned are BBJP, DXJ (hedged), EWJ, FJPNX, FJSCX, FLJP, FSJPX, HEWJ (hedged), HJPIX, MDLOX, MJFOX, PRJPX; diversified international VEA has decent exposure to Japan.
Pg L29: In 2023/Q4 (SP500 +11.55%): Among general equity funds, the best were LC-growth +14.19%, multi-growth +13.90%, SC-value +13.45%, & the worst were equity-income +9.69%, multi-value +9.73%, LC-value +9.83; ALL general equity categories were POSITIVE. Among other equity funds, the best were sc & tech +17.76%, financials +17.49%, and the worst were natural resources -4.68%, China -3.38%%. Among fixed-income funds, domestic long-term FI +5.43%, world income +7.91%; ALL FI & hybrid categories were POSITIVE (FI isn’t very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s).
MORE Fund Stories
Pg 20, Q&A. Michael LIPPERT, BIOPX / BIOIX, BTEEX / BTECX. He looks for secular growth opportunities with big themes – AI, cloud computing, digitalization, genomics, SaaS, cybersecurity, autonomous driving. He likes companies with multiple lines of business and strong management; he holds up to 50 stocks. He no longer owns AAPL, NFLX, etc.
LINK

Here is link to video.

Any search in our tools, and all the attendant data, can be downloaded. But currently we limit the size to 1000 funds, which seemed practical to me. We also have a link to an excel file with performance summary of all funds, oldest share class only ... about 15,000 funds. I know some subscribers just prefer that link! Spreadsheet style. I suppose we could generate a downloadable file of all the static data (no performance) for all funds in database. But then you still need performance data, which has infinite possibilities. I think we could come up with a customized screener or database based on subscriber request, but that is really a different product. Happy to chat more. c

05 january, 2024.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-01-06/wall-street-week-01-05-2024

05 Jan, '24.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-01-05/bloomberg-real-yield-01-05-2024-video

@rforno - just wondering if you considered PBDC before selecting BIZD? I own neither but like the holdings of the former v. the latter. To date I've only speculated in individual holdings.

PBDC liquidity is around 10K/day while BIZD is nearly 500K/day ... plus PBDC's AUM is only 55m vs 850m for BIZD which means the latter probably won't be closing anytime soon. In addition to holdings, both are key considerations in my book, but I agree some of PBDC's holdings are pretty solid.
Like you I thought about doing a few individual holdings but decided to keep it simple - and besides, it'd be fewer company portfolios I'd need to track of and dig into each year. That said there is one UK-based BDC I'd consider owning separately if it comes back down, though.

MFO's MultiSearch is a great tool with an extremely extensive database underlying it, including a lot of MFO-defined metrics. In no way was I trying to disparage it.
That said, I'm more interested in the underlying data than in the tool. You link to images of the UI to show the screening parameters available. I prefer to look at simple table of those parameters:
https://www.member.mfopremium.com/wp-content/themes/twentynineteen-child_202106v3/olib/media/multisearch_screening_parameters.pdf?v20210728.1
I was taught in programming language design that generally less is better; too many ways of accomplishing something confuses people. Not unlike the effect seen when 401(k)s have too many options. So using predefined sets of options via select boxes is a good screener design for many users.
Realistically, many people think of screeners this way - give me all the diversified foreign funds with large cap blend portfolios and a three year risk/reward rating of 5 (out of 5).
I prefer something more flexible and powerful like a SQL interpreter. The LexisNexis query language is another example of this sort of flexibility, though that language is designed more for document searches than database field searches.
I gave a simple example of a query above that most tools can't handle. Say I'm concerned about the stability of funds that are very small. I might search for funds over $1B in AUM. But recognizing that it takes time to build assets, I might make allowances. For young (under 3 year old) funds, I could accept funds with at least $500M in assets.
Of course I could do this in two separate searches (over $1B, young and over $500M), though I'd have to combine the result sets and weed out duplicates (young funds with over $1B in assets). I'd like to be able to do this in a single query. And I'd like to be able to set arbitrary thresholds, say $767M instead of $500M. That's not possible if I'm given only a choice of $500M, $1B, $10B, or $100B.
As to cost, let's see how the tax laws change in a couple of years. Right now, there are no above-the-line charitable deductions (as there were in 2021). And without a mortgage it's hard to itemize now.
One can still get a tax advantage by contributing via a donor advised fund or a QCD. Those must be pure contributions with no benefit received; they are not subscriptions. Proceeds do go to a good cause. I've contributed before and expect to do so again.
This is not a complaint. It is a fact of life. The subscription services are an inducement to contribute and so pragmatically they cannot be offered separately. If the services were offered separately, people would be less motivated to contribute beyond the cost of the subscription. (I also decline the tote bags offered from 501(c)(3) institutions X, Y, and Z.)
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/support-us
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/support-us/501c3/